OUR DUPLICITOUS DRUG DIALOGUES

Suppose you're a seventh-grade teacher in an American public school. The
school's new drug education curriculum requires you to lead your students
in an "honest discussion" about marijuana. Drawing from the curriculum's
suggested questions, you ask the students how marijuana use might affect
their schoolwork, their athletic performance, their friendships and their
family life. Then a hand shoots up.

"Excuse me," a student asks. "Did you ever smoke pot?"

Like millions of other American adults, you probably did. Maybe you still
do, every now and then. But if you want to keep your job, you will dodge
the question. Or you will answer it -- with a lie. So much for "honest
discussion."

Recently America's leading drug-education program announced a fundamental
shift in its approach. For almost two decades, Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (DARE) has sent police officers into the nation's schools to
teach children the dangers of illegal narcotics. In the face of mounting
evidence that the program does not deter drug use, however, DARE officials
have decided to try a different tack. Instead of lecturing on the perils
of drugs, police officers will lead discussions about why people use these
substances. Likewise, regular classroom teachers will conduct role playing
and other exercises to provoke dialogue about drugs -- and especially to
help children make "responsible decisions" about them.

In many ways, these changes echo the historical shift in education about
America's most commonly abused drug: alcohol. By 1901 every state required
instruction in "the dangers of alcoholic drinks." Textbooks emphasized
liquor's damaging effects upon the brain, liver, lungs, heart and stomach.
Even eyesight was imperiled. "Do you remember what we said about the red
eyes of the hard drinker?" one 1906 text asked. "It is useless for such a
person to ask the doctor to cure his eyes as long as he uses strong drink."

With the rise of medical science, chemists and physiologists began to
challenge many of these claims. So did newly minted experts in the field of
experimental psychology, who charged that scare tactics and exaggerations
would alienate students or even tempt them to drink. Better to lead the
children in a discussion of the full scientific, historical and
sociological facts about alcohol, so that they could reach their own
decisions about whether and how to use it.

By the repeal of national prohibition in 1933, textbooks had dropped many
of their distortions and lies about alcohol. In the guise of "discussion,"
however, schools continued to teach the same basic theme that had permeated
the subject from the start: abstinence. Adults now could use alcohol
legally, of course, but they did so at great risk to themselves and their
families. Children must never drink, because even a small amount of alcohol
could lead them into a life of ruin.

The new DARE approach reflects a similar mix of sincerity and duplicity. We
should applaud the program for abandoning its singular focus on the dangers
of illegal drugs, especially its wildly inflated estimations of their
addictive properties.

On the other hand, we should realize that DARE's goal has remained the
same: to deter kids from using drugs. Despite the new rhetoric of "honest
discussion," every lesson will encourage children to choose abstinence and
abstinence alone.

That might be a worthy objective, but it's not honest. It's not even a
discussion. An honest discussion of illegal drugs would have to acknowledge
that many people have used them without harm, that other democracies
regulate them in a different manner, that legal drugs sometimes cause more
damage than illegal ones and so on.

If we truly believed in our children's ability to make "responsible
decisions," we would allow -- even encourage -- this type of dialogue.
Instead, we provide only the information that tends to support our
decision. That's indoctrination, not education. Children always know the
difference, even when educators do not.